My favorite was the comment that suggested he had to step down because was having an affair with Gen. Petraeus. As informative as the other speculation, but actually got a chuckle out of me.
Much more likely than Ballmer not feeling that Sinofsky is up to snuff for the CEO's job is that Ballmer is afraid the Board may view Sinofsky as a better candidate for the job than him. There have been some calls for Microsoft to get rid of Ballmer, and it's more difficult for them to do so if there are fewer viable alternatives.
It's as good a guess as any. Ballmer's tenure as CEO of Microsoft wasn't disastrous, but it wasn't great either. The company just sort of floated through the 2000s.
Under this theory, you believe that Ballmer can unilaterally have Sinofsky removed without board approval? Or the board just unthinkingly goes along with him, even though it removes a high-profile leader in the organization?
It's called scapegoating. All you have to do is convince the board that someone else is responsible for all the company's problems, then you not only get rid of an opponent, but make yourself look good in the process. It's a win-win for one person. :-)
Basically Sinofsky was fired because Ballmer/Gates wanted more collaboration/integration between the other divisions. And Sinofsky is famous for protecting his fiefdom. Very similar to Forstall.
16 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 48.4 ms ] threadOf course, this is just speculation.
http://allthingsd.com/20121113/in-the-sinofsky-departure-bil...
Basically Sinofsky was fired because Ballmer/Gates wanted more collaboration/integration between the other divisions. And Sinofsky is famous for protecting his fiefdom. Very similar to Forstall.